Estimating Risk at the Energy Production Unit of “AHS” Keratea-

Lavrio

KERPELIS P.1,2, ARGYRIOU A-C.1, ALEXAKIS D.Ε.2, KOTINAS V.2

1Department of Civil Engineering, University of West Attica, Campus 2, 250 Thivon & P. Ralli Str.,

GR-12241 Athens, GREECE

2Laboratory of Geoenvironmental Science and Environmental Quality Assurance, Department of Civil

Engineering, University of West Attica, Campus 2, 250 Thivon & P. Ralli Str., GR-12241 Athens,

GREECE

Correspodence: kerpelis@uniwa.gr

Abstract: - Every business should protect its employees in matters of Safety and Health. It is deemed necessary

to access, analyze and classify risks to achieve these issues. The study aims to analyse and estimate

occupational risk based on the appropriate empirical " Checklist " method by the responsible staff. Specifically,

the relevant legislation and Regulations-Directives from Greek and European sources were studied to approach

the Safety and Health issues and data for Risk Analysis. Considering the theoretical background of the energy

production, a rapid visual screening of the Unit of Keratea-Lavrio Steam Power Station (“AHS” Keratea-

Lavrio) was conducted. In addition, discussions were held with the facilities' managers, who are responsible for

developing and implementing safety and health plans and highlighting and analyzing critical points of the

station. Afterwards, the total risk(after taking into account several factors) is identified and classifiedinto three

categories, revealing the corresponding risk reduction measures. Conclusions about safety and hygiene were

drawn about the “AHS” Keratea-Lavrio Energy Production Unit.

Key-Words: health and safety; risk assessment; safety assessment; occupational accident; energy production

units; checklist empirical method

Received: February 7, 2023. Revised: November 22, 2023. Accepted: December 24, 2023. Published: March 4, 2024.

1 Introduction

Small enterprises have given rise to handicrafts and

factories that are nowadaysconverted into

enterprises of different sizes. In 1527 Agricola, a

Saxon physician, proposed the employment of a

doctor in mines and mines [1]. The Industrial

Revolution movement (18th-20th century), followed

by other European cities such as France and the

United States of America, created new risks for

factory workers, setting new priorities for safety.

Defending workers at risk in courts was complex

due to the fear of dismissal, lack of evidence, high

financial costs and the lack of qualified lawyers. In

1833 and 1844, laws were enacted in Great Britain

(as Factory Acts) to protect industry workers [2]. In

1919, at the International Labor Conference,

conventions were signed that defined the minimum

age limit for workers in Industries and issues related

to night work for young people. In 1833, the

Inspector of Factories was founded in the same

country. In 1835, Massachusetts passed laws

prohibiting the employment of children under ten

years of age and created a Bureau of Statistics that

evolved into today's Department of Labor. In 1911,

the first legislation on employer's liability and

workers' compensation was introduced in the event

of an accident. Later, in 1913, the National Accident

Safety Board was established in Europe and the

United States. In 1959, the ΄΄Medical Work΄΄ policy

was created and implemented in order to protect

workers following International Convention 112

(recommendation 171/1985).

In the European Union (EU), a legal provision

was created to improve safety in the workplace

(Single European Act), the year 1987 [3]. The

substantial milestone Directive 89/391/EEC

introducesthe Europe's minimum safety and health

requirements and refers that member states had to

incorporate it into their national legislation by 1992.

In 1997, the Treaty of Amsterdam defined the

responsibilities of employers and employees, and

articles 136, 151 were drafted in the Treaty of

International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Development

DOI: 10.37394/232033.2024.2.6

Kerpelis P., Argyriou A-C.,

Alexakis D.E., Kotinas V.

E-ISSN: 2945-1159

Volume 2, 2024

Lisbon. Later, the European Parliament and Council

legislated on the health and safety of workers

(European Regulation 1338/2008). Accordingly, in

2011, the European Regulation 349/2011 regarding

statistics on accidents at work was drawn up, and

the variables, distributions and metadata to be

provided by Member States were approved in detail.

Directives as the Directive 89/391/European

Economic Community (EEC), Directive

(EU)89/654/EEC: about Working areas, Directive

89/655/EEC: about working equipment, improve

health and safety issues of the workers. Other

similar Directives are Directive 89/656/EEC: about

personal working equipment, such as Directive

90/269/European Economic Community: about

Manual movement of loads and the Directive

(EU)89/270/EEC: about Work on equipment with a

visual display screen.

Eurostat as Health and Safety Authority in

Ireland [4] records occupational accidents. The

complete list for data collection from the European

Statistics on Accidents at Work (ESAW) includes

nine (9) variables related to: workstation, work

environment, work process, specific physical

activity, materials associated with physical activity,

deviations, materials related to deviations, contact

and injury, and materials related to contact and

mode of injury. The categorization of the statistical

data highlights the occupational accidents that

happened to men-women, and the participation of

occupational accidents of specific categories

(agriculture-forestry-fishing, industries,

constructions, wholesale-retail trade, transport-

storage) concerning the whole. Fatal or non-fatal

occupational accidents (according the age of the

workers or the causes and the mode of injury) are

illuminated in the light of statistics.

European Council reveals the guidelines on

topics such as: Directives-Frameworks, workplaces,

equipment, signage, Personal Protective Equipment

(PPE), exposure to physical, biological and

chemical agents, provisions for ergonomic,

psychosocial risks and workload, as well as special

provisions for various sectors and workers. Some of

the main Directives are: 89/391/EEC Directive –

Framework, 89/654/EEC workplaces, 89/655/EEC

Work equipment, 89/656/EEC PPE, 90/269/EEC

Manual Handling of loads and 90/270/EEC: Work

on equipment with visual display screen. EU

promotes the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) for minimizing the

occupational accidents [5].

In Greece, the former Social Insurance

Institution called “IKA”, in collaboration with the

Ministry of Labour, had collected statistical data on

occupational accidents, from 1964 to 1998. Law

1568/1985 establishes the Safety Technician, the

Occupational Physician, the Health and Safety

Committee and the worker protection measures. The

Hellenic Statistical Authority (HSA) has been

recording occupational accidents since 1998.

European Regulation 1338/2008 and Implementing

Regulation 349/2011 apply [6]. At the same time,

the Laws that apply nowadays are the Law 551/1915

and the Mandatory Law1846/1951 (Article 8,

paragraph 4). Law 1568/1985 establishes essential

issues for the health and safety of employees (safety

technician, occupational doctor, etc.). Other Law

literature is Law 3850/2010 about the participants

(Technical Safety, Occupational Doctor, Committee

for Health and Safety at work), Law 4075/2012

about “IKA” insurance regulation issues and Law

4808/2021 about the establishment of an

Independent Labour Inspectorate. President's decree

as 294/1988, 395/1994, 396/1994, 105/1995,

16/1996, 17/1996 etc regulate partial health and

safety issues. Also, circulars from the former “IKA”

27/2011, 52/2011, 45/2010, 22/2004, 55/2001 and

15/1987 assist these issues [7].

Statistics on fatal accidents at work in mines and

quarries were released in 2021 and showed that the

percentage ranges till 3.2% of the total. Over the

years, the needs, amendments and new

jurisprudence were followed with the aim of

ensuring Health and Safety in technical projects,

industries, and every professional branch of the

country.

2 Problem Formulation

It is evident that essential enterprises/infrastructures

like energy production units must implement health

and safety rules [8]. It has proved that all the

participants must work cooperatively with

prevention from the beginning of infrastructure to

address potential risks in time [9]. Researchers

reviewed safety and risk management methods for

long periods, from decade 60s until the present [10].

The main scope of this research is estimating the

risk at the “AHS” Keratea-Lavrio. The risk analysis

must also consider all the potential factors involved.

Frankly, occupational accidents are multi-

parametric incidents, including latent and active

possible causes.

Implementing the legislative framework includes

the obligations of employers and workers,

International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Development

DOI: 10.37394/232033.2024.2.6

Kerpelis P., Argyriou A-C.,

Alexakis D.E., Kotinas V.

E-ISSN: 2945-1159

Volume 2, 2024

cooperation between them and the competent

authorities, the existence of a Safety Technician, an

Occupational Doctor and a Committee for the health

and safety of employees (“EYAE”). Alternatively,

its services may be provided by an External Service

for Health and Safety (“EXIPP”). Continuous

education and training must be performed, and

protective measures about first aid, fire fighting, and

the evacuation method must be implemented.

Risks in the work environment are the non-

observance of instructions, the incorrect use of PPE

and personal protective measures, the failure to

report any omission or problem and the failure to

make arbitrary decisions (e.g. moving equipment).

The enterprise must draw up Safety and Health Plan

(SHP) and the Safety and Health File (SHF). The

working area during the construction period must be

kept safe, using fencing, signage, pharmacy and

PPE, according to the SHP. Similarly, SHF provides

the project details and valuable information for its

later life (such as maintenance, cleaning and

conversions) must bind the plan.

Fig. 1:Steps of occupational risk assessment

Law 3850/2010, President's decree as 305/1996 and

certifications of ISO (as ISO 45001:2008, ISO

45003:2021, IEC/ISO 31010:2019 and ISO/TR

14121-2:2012) must be respected [11]. Hellenic

Labour Inspectorate is monitoring the processes of

health and safety.

Occupational risk is linked with exposure to

harmful factors, including the frequency of

accidents, probability, and consequences.

Researchers verify that accident occurrences and

their consequences show a non-uniform fluctuation

during the years and confirm the uncertainty and the

unpredictable nature of accidents [10]. ELINYAE

categorizes the risks into three (3) classes: Safety,

health and ergonomic hazards. The first step for risk

analysis is the recognition of risks directly at work.

The next step is the protective measures that must

be taken. Occupational risk assessment can reduce

or even eliminate most risks. If some of them cannot

be completely eliminated, it is possible to adopt the

appropriate measures to reduce them. It is necessary

to record the sources of risk and the number of

employees exposed to them. Figure 1 presents the

steps for the occupational risk analysis.

Safety and health problems can be easily solved

using simple mathematical tools such as pocket

calculators, spreadsheets or even programs like

Mathcad using models (as the exposure to acetone

vapors from a small acetone spill in a place). Safety

professionals become more effective if they have

robust math skills, but different industries have their

own specific equations based on the type of work.

The advise is that safety expert must lean on their

colleagues in their community for retrieving data

[12].

Table 1. Methods of risk analysis

a/a

Qualitative

estimation

Quantitative

estimation

Checklists

Event Tree

Analysis (ETA)

Preliminary hazard

analysis (PHA)

Fault Tree

Analysis (FTA)

Safety Flowchart

Failure Mode and

Effects Analysis

(FMEA)

What If Analysis

(WIA)

Failure modes and

effects and critical

analysis

(FMECA)

Bow-Tie Analysis

Hazard and

operability

study(HAZOP)

Layers of Protection

Analysis (LOPA)

Security Vulnerability

Analysis (SVA)

OSHA has established specific mathematical

calculations enabling companies to report their

recordable incident rates, lost time, and severity

rates [5]. The standard base rate for the calculations

is based on 200,000 labour hours. These hours

International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Development

DOI: 10.37394/232033.2024.2.6

Kerpelis P., Argyriou A-C.,

Alexakis D.E., Kotinas V.

E-ISSN: 2945-1159

Volume 2, 2024

equate to 100 employees who work 40 hours per

week and 50 weeks per year. Using this

standardized base rate, companies can calculate

their rate(s) and get a percentage per 100

employees. Safety professionals can use comparing,

and benchmarking tools via internet to calculate

these indicators (occupational injury and illness

incidence rates) [13].

The present study uses the qualitative estimation

method of “Checklist”. It’s an empirical method of

estimation, just like the methods of questionnaires

that are used by the European Union (OSHA). Oral

communications with the responsible for the station

and frequent visits to it revealed the danger that the

working area runs through. Statistical Science is

used for the analysis of occupational risk.

Table 1 presents the risk assessment methods

[14]. Another significant categorization of the

qualitative risk analysis are the categories including

Brainstorming, Interviewing, Delphi technique,

Historical data, Operating hazard analysis (OHA),

Risk matrixes [15], as well as Toxicity assessment

(TA), Structured “What-if” technique (SWIFT) and

Scenario analysis (SA). Additionally, other methods

are: Business impact analysis (BIA), Route cause

analysis (RCA), Cause-consequence analysis, Cause

and effect analysis, Decision tree analysis, Human

reliability assessment (HRA) [16]. Between the

qualitative and quantitative method exists the semi-

qualitative method. Many uncertainties exist to all

the methods [17].

2.1 Description of the Health and Safety at

“AHS” Keratea-Lavrio

The main scope of this study is served by the on-site

visit of the “AHS” Keratea-Lavrio the summer of

2023. It was noticed that the power station was

founded in 1950. In 1974, the Lavrio Energy Center

was created with the first Steam Power Unit with a

power of 150,000 KW and then the second with a

power of 300,000 KW. In 1980 the 234 MW gas

turbine units were operated at the Station. The

“AHS” Keratea-Lavrio was in regular operation in

1998 with the completion of the installation of the

natural gas pipeline as well as with the completion

of the "MikroLavrio", with 117 MW power (1997).

The power unit consists of the central units of the

production, three retired units, water treatment

facilities, cooling seawater and industrial waste

treatment plants, port facilities, tanks of oil and

diesel, natural gas arrival station, warehouses,

machine shop, maintenance building, chemical

Laboratory, Administration building, restaurant-

canteen and other auxiliary buildings.

The station currently has two production units

run using natural gas and diesel. These materials are

unloaded at the port facility and stored in the

existing tanks. In the facilities of the Station, there

are storage areas for materials used during

maintenance, but also for chemical substances for

the control of the Chemistry. The Chemistry

operates throughout the day, carrying out

continuous checks.At the same time, the facilities

for water treatment, seawater treatment for cooling

the units and industrial waste treatment are also in

continuous operation.

The number of employees (about 170 workers) is

variable. It is divided into permanent staff,

temporary staff and contract staff. People with

disabilities do not exist, but there are provisions for

visitors. The enterprise employs Safety Technician,

Occupational Doctor and nurses, Committee for

health and safety (called “EYAE”) and Port Facility

Security Officer (called “YALE”). EYAE consists

of three (3) workers, and laws are strictly followed.

A central and seven (7) partial pharmacies exist.

The employees carry out preventive check-ups and

their medical records are maintained.

As noticed, the “Health and Safety Plan”, the

“Emergency Response Plan”, the “Port Facility

Security Plan” and the “Safety Plan of Operation”

were according the legislation and they were

reviewed at regular intervals. The “Emergency

Response Plan” covers emergencies involving Fire

(explosion or chemical spill), Natural phenomena

(such as earthquake) and illegal acts (such as

terrorism). The “Safety Plan of Operation” is drawn

up following the SOLAS XI-2 Convention, the

International Code for the Security of Ships and Port

Facilities (ISPS Code), Regulation (EC) 725/2004

and Laws 3622/2007 and 4150/2013.

The Safety Technician, the Occupational Doctor,

the “EYAE” and the Port Facility Safety Officer

“PFSO” were in reaction with the “Book of Written

Instructions”, the “Accident Book” and the “Book

for Measurements of Harmful Factors”. The

Harmful factors are determined as noise, particulate

matters, the microclimate (as lighting and

ventilation) and hazardous substances. “AHS”

Keratea-Lavrio has been certified for Safety and

Health at Work and the Environment according to

the standards of ELOT ISO 45001 (evolution of the

British standard BS OHSAS 18001) and ELOT ISO

14001. An annual program is drawn up every year

trainingunder previous ISOs.

Safety specifications consisted of the

equipment's stability, strength and firmness, the

cooperation of all the safety contributors and

compliance with the regulations. Examples of these

situations are the prevention of fire during work,

measurement of harmful factors, appropriate

lighting, door safety devices, smoking areas, and

more. Another crucial specification for safety is the

“Lock box” and “Lockout” systems. The first is a

International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Development

DOI: 10.37394/232033.2024.2.6

Kerpelis P., Argyriou A-C.,

Alexakis D.E., Kotinas V.

E-ISSN: 2945-1159

Volume 2, 2024

safety net based on “Isolation protocol” for the

operation of mechanical energy. The second is a

method where the isolation is done using a locking

mouthpiece with unique padlocks (depending on the

number of tasks). Padlocks have unique keys. After

all, for the implementation of any work, the

“Uniform Regulation for Issuing Work Permits for

Thermal Power Plants” is followed, the employees

are trained and the appropriate materials and tools

are selected, considering the cases of fire and more.

Emergency traffic routes - danger zones

predicted in case of emergencies. Emergency exits

have been studied, properly planned (according to

the number of employees that should evacuate the

area) and inspected twice a week. The emergency

doors are unlocked and have suitable safety

mechanisms (even manual ones) to prevent them

from closing suddenly (presence of doors with

“push bars”). Vehicle gates were provided space for

pedestrian traffic.

According to Presidential Decree 105/95 and the

“Written Occupational Risk Assessment”, there are

signages in the area. On the traffic roads of the

Station, the markings have been signed following

the provisions of the “Road Traffic Code” (Law

2696/1999) and frequent checking has been

performed. The marking of the premises is divided

into permanent and occasional marking. Permanent

marking is achieved with signs and paints. It refers

to the prohibition, warning, obligation, recognition

and identification of first aid and rescue equipment

for dealing with a fire, marking containers of

materials and pipes, marking possible hazards of

impact with objects or falls, and marking traffic

roads. Occasional signage refers to the marking of

hazardous events, as the danger of slipping (during

the cleaning works). In addition, situational

signalling also refers to calling people for a specific

action, the urgent removal of people and the

guidance of people with manipulations (such as

sound-light signals, wireless communication

systems and signals with gestures).

Posted boards with instructions (such as safe

working conditions and first aid) are everywhere. A

thermometric system can measure the temperature

of the employees and visitors (because of

COVID19). Ιn all areas, there is an antiseptic hand

solution and signs for using a protective mask. No

smoking areas exist at the Station. Other rooms are

appropriate for the resting of the employees.

Changing rooms and storage of clothing, their

personal belongings and personal protective

measures also exist. Guests are provided with a

safety helmet, a disposable cap (to be fitted before

the helmet), and disposable earplugs.

PPE granted to all the employees, according the

European Standards EN [18]. These consisted of

safety helmets (according to EN397 and EN166),

safety footwear (EN345/92 S3), work gloves

(EN388 and EN420), multi-purpose or disposable

plugs (EN352-1, EN352-2 and EN352-3), safety

glasses (EN166) and face safety mask (EN175).

Other means were fluorescent vests, headphones,

safety belts, lashing ropes, safety loops, oxygen

masks and stored oxygen bottles. Additionally,

depending on the specialty and the work of the

technical staff is defined extra PPE by the Safety

Technician.

In addition, specialized trainings were carried out

for the technical staff, either when new equipment is

used, training at the Port Facility of the Station,

evacuation training for all the station staff, and

training for the Physical Safety (Security) staff. In

addition, collaborations carried out to conduct drills

by the Fire Department and other agencies. The

Station has appropriate fire detection and fire

extinguishing equipment (CO2 and powder

individual fire extinguishers ABCE) and automatic

systems (system Deluge). The deluge CO2 has

backup bottles of extinguishing material. Fire

pumps (petrol and electric-driven), tanks, fire

stations and hoses connected to the central water

supply system join their forces against a possible

fire at the station. Fire safety teams for each area of

the Station can intervene to suppress fire outbreaks.

The installed optical systems and audible alarms

assisted in warning. All media is signed, regularly

maintained and checked weekly.

The microclimate for workplaces is often

checked. The proper and sufficient provision

provided fresh air where it was necessary to install a

ventilation and air duct system. The temperature

during work is adjusted according to the needs of

the human body and the climatic conditions of the

seasons. At regular intervals, measurements of

harmful factors are made, which are repeated

approximately every five years or more often if

there is a change in the equipment or the use of it. In

the event of a fire inside a unit, a mechanical system

is installed for direct ventilation of the space. Every

workplace has adequate lighting, either natural or

artificial.

3 Problem Solution

The survey's main goal is the risk analysis at the

“AHS” Keratea-Lavrio, using a checklist recording

various potential factors that are taken into account

to identify the total risk of this power plant. After

many visits into the site and interviews with the

responsible staff, the possible risks were identified,

recorded and included typical examples of the

manifestation of the risks, the degree of risks and

the description of possible effects. Furthermore, the

International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Development

DOI: 10.37394/232033.2024.2.6

Kerpelis P., Argyriou A-C.,

Alexakis D.E., Kotinas V.

E-ISSN: 2945-1159

Volume 2, 2024

participants were called to propose measures needed

in order to reduce the identified risks.

The risk analysis processed the aggregated data.

A checklist about the above factors was created and

is presented in Table 2 and more detailed in

Appendix 1. The Safety Technician, Occupational

Doctor and PFSO contributed to the rating of the

risk analysis. Every factor is categorized with values

between 1 and 5 i.e. “Low Risk” (values 1-2),

“Moderate Risk” (value 3) and “High Risk” (values

4-5). “Low Risk” values indicate that acceptable

risk exists in parallel with certain protective

measures, while “Moderate Risk” indicates that

programming is needed, protection measures have

to be implemented and extended monitoring is

necessary. “High Risk” value is an indication of the

immediate need for the implementation of several

protective measures.

Table 2. Summary table of the main factors of the

risk analysis

a/a

Threats

Ranking of

risks

Occupancy of

entrances/exits of the

station

Low

Occupancy of an internal

part of the station

Low

Occasional section capture

coastal zone or the Port

Moderate

Intentional contamination

of the coastal section of the

station

High

Technological

infrastructure disasters

minor scale

High

Technological

infrastructure disasters

High

Phone pranks, Bombing

threats

Moderate

Falling of an employee

of the station or crew of the

fuel transport vessel within

the sea area near the station

High

Fires inside the station

High

Collapse (total or partial)

of the buildings and the

facilities of the station

High

Traffic accident on the

internal road network of the

station

Pandemics

High

Moderate

The analysis highlights 12 factors that may occur at

the station, according to the responsible staff of the

Unit. These factors are occupations of entrances and

exits, sea pollution, technological disasters,

employee falls, fires, building collapses, traffic

accidents and pandemics. The possible impacts were

considered, and proposed measures need to be taken

in any of the cases mentioned earlier for their

mitigation.

Table 3. Summary table of the main preventive

measures of the risk analysis

Type of

risk

reduction

measures

Preventive measures for mitigation

of the impacts

Preventive measures (before the

disaster/occupational accident)

1.1.

Create more emergency entrances

and exits

1.2.

Installation of a microphone system

for emergency announcements to

staff/workers

1.3.

Installation of emergency signs

(i.e. speed limit signs)

1.4.

Reserve operation planning and

communications systems

1.5.

Preparation and elaboration of energy

plans, in cooperation with the

Facilities Security Director

1.6.

Preparation actions and

implementation of emergency

response plans (performing

emergency exercises and

evacuations)

1.7.

Regular training of Station

employees regarding the

implementation of emergency

response plans, the correct use of

life-saving equipment, PPE, safety

road rules as well as the provision of

First Aid

The categorization of the factors revealed that two

(2) factors characterized as “Low Risk”, 3 factors as

“Moderate Risk” while seven (7) factors as “High

Risk”. These results are similar to our expected

values as the “AHS” Keratea-Lavrio is a critical

infrastructure facing several dangers/risks. It is

remarkable that factors associated with “High Risk”

include heavy impacts to the people or/and to the

environment. “Moderate Risk” factors are

associated with injuries while other operational

issues (as the shutdown of the station) are

International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Development

DOI: 10.37394/232033.2024.2.6

Kerpelis P., Argyriou A-C.,

Alexakis D.E., Kotinas V.

E-ISSN: 2945-1159

Volume 2, 2024

characterized as “Low Risk”. In any case, protective

measures are proposed. In percentages, “Low Risk”

occupies a percentage of 16,7% of the whole risk,

“Moderate Risk” occupies 25% while “High Risk”

occupies 58,3%.

The survey separates the measures needed due to

the station's risk analysis at two central classes: (i)

preventive measures before the dangers and (ii)

management measures after the occurrence and the

impacts of the danger. The first measures are seven

(7) and the second is eleven (11). Table 3 presents

these preventive risk reduction measures, while

Table 4 portraysthe management measures,

according the exclusively dangers detected.

Table 4. Summary table of the main management

measures of the risk analysis

Type of

risk

reduction

measures

Management measures for

mitigation of the impacts

Management measures (after the

disaster/occupational accident)

2.1.

Implementation of emergency

response plans, in collaboration with

the Safety Facilities’ Division –

Estimating of the situation

2.2.

Informing the emergency services

and the Public Authorities (Fire

Department/ Police / Port Officer-

Coastal guard and the Prefecture /

Municipality)

2.3.

Inform all staff about the incident

over the public address system, using

a microphone system

2.4.

Activation of fire safety

2.5.

Activation of ambulance and nursing

operation team

2.6.

Activation of Port security plans

under by the Port Facility Safety

Officer (YALE)

2.7.

Activation of building evacuation

teams

2.8.

Interruption of vehicle traffic on the

internal road network

2.9.

Granting of PPE for the employees

2.10

Relocation of services

2.11

Creating preconditions for the

reception of external aid and the

removal of people in danger

A similar risk analysis methodology was applied at

the Water Treatment Systems of “AHS” Melitis in

2018, using the consequences of dangers and the

probabilities to occur. The result was the proposed

preventive measures to those involved [19].

Industries recently used improved safety

checklists using intelligent video surveillance to

replace on-site inspections. These methods prove

the entrance of media and distance checking of

vulnerabilities at the altar of the safety and health

evaluation [20].

Researchers proved that checklist judgment

accuracy was similar to quantitative exposure

judgment accuracy observed in studies of similar

design [21]. Occupational health specialists applied

checklists for the evaluation of psychosocial risk.

Increased competence in specific skills was

recorded with the sample of physicians that didn’t

participate [22].

Observation is one of the main discovery issues

implemented in qualitative approaches in public

health [23]. At this glance, the present risk analysis

focuses on all the infrastructure hazards the staff is

exposed to. Risk analysis about pesticides and

chemical substances also uses preliminary tool

models by farmers for practical use [24]. In

addition, hazardous materials, and much more are

been involved in the final assessment.

The study is a first step in risk analysis of the

station, using checklist approach [25] according to

construction safety principles [26]. That procedure

of preliminary studies (as qualitative methods) is

standard to engineering problems and studies,

causing positive or negative results [27], when it is

compared with quantitative predictions.

The present problem is approached through a

qualitative first reading to take immediate protection

measures or to give priorities for further study. This

is supported by the limited time and finances that

the administrations have for taking restrictive

measures. It considered the opinion of the

responsible staff of the Unit (charged with several

responsibilities on the site), who take care of all the

procedures and recognize all the parameters of the

problems. These estimates also depend on the

timing carried out. In this study, the implementation

took place during the summer season, which means

that the work was carried out with less staff (due to

summer vacations), but the station managers were

more willing to be recorded their opinions on the

checklist. The opinion of the responsible staff

depends also from their perception of the danger and

the risk. More detailed studies must be done for

more focused research, as well as the assessment of

the risk.

4 Conclusion

“AHS” Keratea-Lavrio is a critical infrastructure

near the capital of Greece, and all stakeholders

International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Development

DOI: 10.37394/232033.2024.2.6

Kerpelis P., Argyriou A-C.,

Alexakis D.E., Kotinas V.

E-ISSN: 2945-1159

Volume 2, 2024

(Greek state, municipality of Lavrio and the local

society) need to show greater interest and be aware

of its potential vulnerabilities, due to several future

risks. The Laws are multifarious, including all the

parameters of occupational accidents according to

European Union Directives and ISO standards.

Organizations, institutes, and other government

bodies treat all issues related to these aspects.

Safety Technician, Occupational Doctor,

Commitees and the responsible staff of the Energy

Unit must monitor and implement health and safety,

using primary rapid observations, including

checklists, as a qualitative risk evaluation method.

The participants can indicate danger issues and the

risk mitigation must be planned.

Various risks are generated at “AHS” Keratea-

Lavrio. The analysis highlights twelve (12) threat

factors according to the checklist that was created

during this study. The impacts of the dangers are

five (5), ranking from a station shut down, a port

shut down, injuries, deaths and environmental

impacts. Furthermore, the factors are classified as

risks according to the description of their effects.

The result is that this energy Unit has a

significant percentage 58.3% of High Risk (as

expected), and a lower percentage of Moderate

(25%) and Low Risk (16.7%). The severity of the

five impact factors of threats is closely related to the

ranking of the risk scale (high, moderate, low).

Specific measures (that are nominated) must be

implemented in any case of future risk to mitigate

the impacts of disasters or occupational accidents.

Seven (7) risk reduction measures are categorised as

protective measures, while eleven (11) are the most

common among the interviewees as management

measures.

The risk analysis reveals valuable data for their

administration, similar infrastructure, and the

government to draw up risk management policy, set

priorities, and choose the optimal potential

solutions. Local construction agencies may improve

the safety and health measures for risk mitigation.

Furthermore, the on-site investigation described in

this study can assist the professionals understand the

role of every involved factor. The future direction

may be the more focused exanimation of the risk

factors, the correlation with the results of

quantitative methods, or even more of the

connection of the present method with new

technologies (such as cameras). More risk analysis

surveys will eventually be required to precisely

determine health and safety issues.

Acknowledgement:

The authors appreciate the cooperation of the

responsible employees and managers of the “AHS’

Keratea-Lavrio, who provided us with the needed

data.

Also,being thankful to the editor and reviewers

for their valuable comments and suggestions

certainly enhanced the quality of this article.

References:

[1] I. P. Adamopoulos and N. F. Syrou,

“Workplace Safety and Occupational Health

Job Risks Hazards in Public Health Sector in

Greece,” Eur. J. Environ. Public Heal., vol.

2022, no. 2, p. 118, 2022, doi:

10.21601/ejeph/12229.

[2] The National Archives, “1833 Factory Act,”

2023.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/educati

on/resources/1833-factory-act/ (accessed

Dec. 29, 2023).

[3] European Union, “Single European Act,”

1987. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:11986U/TXT

(accessed Dec. 29, 2023).

[4] Health and Safety Authority, “Anual Review

of Workplace Injury, Illness and Fataly

Statistics 2018-2019,” Dublin, 2020.

Accessed: Jan. 17, 2024. [Online]. Available:

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/publications_and_for

ms/publications/corporate/annual_review_of

_workplace_injury_illness_and_fatality_stati

stics_2018-2019.pdf.

[5] OSHA, “Occupational Safety and Health

Administration,” 2023.

https://www.osha.gov/ (accessed Dec. 29,

2023).

[6] ELSTAT, “Website of ELSTAT,” 2023.

https://www.statistics.gr/en/home/ (accessed

Dec. 29, 2023).

[7] ELINYAE, “Website of ELINYAE,” 2023.

https://www.elinyae.gr/en (accessed Dec. 29,

2023).

[8] DEI, “Monitoring of environmental

parameters - Annual Report of ‘AHS’

Keratea-Lavrio,” (in Greek), 2021.

Accessed: Dec. 29, 2023. [Online].

Available: https://ypen.gov.gr/wp-

content/uploads/2022/03/Ετήσια-Έκθεση-

ΑΗΣ-Λαυρίου-2021-1.pdf.

[9] C. S. Pawar, S. S. Jain, and J. R. Patil, “Risk

Management in Infrastructure Projects in

India,” Int. J. Innov. Res. Adv. Eng., vol. 4,

pp. 2349–2163, 2015, Accessed: Jan. 17,

International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Development

DOI: 10.37394/232033.2024.2.6

Kerpelis P., Argyriou A-C.,

Alexakis D.E., Kotinas V.

E-ISSN: 2945-1159

Volume 2, 2024

2024. [Online]. Available: www.ijirae.com.

[10] F. Khan, S. Rathnayaka, and S. Ahmed,

“Methods and models in process safety and

risk management: Past, present and future,”

Process Saf. Environ. Prot., vol. 98, pp.

116–147, Nov. 2015, doi:

10.1016/J.PSEP.2015.07.005.

[11] ISO, “The ISO 45001 on occupational health

and safety,” 2023.

https://www.iso.org/2016/02/Ref2012.html

(accessed Dec. 29, 2023).

[12] B. Bottino, “Math and safety pros,” 2023.

https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/a

rticles/24267-math-for-safety-pros (accessed

Jan. 16, 2024).

[13] NSC Injury Facts, “Industry Injury and

Rates,” 2024.

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/work/industry-

incidence-rates/how-to-benchmark/

(accessed Jan. 16, 2024).

[14] C. Pamukcu, “Analysis and management of

risks experienced in tunnel construction,”

Acta Montan. Slovaca, vol. 20, no. 4, pp.

271–281, 2015, [Online]. Available:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298

702019_Analysis_and_management_of_risk

s_experienced_in_tunnel_construction.

[15] R. Tiusanen, “Qualitative Risk Analysis,” in

Handbook of Safety Principles, John Wiley

& Sons, Ltd, 2017, pp. 463–492.

[16] D. Valis and M. Koucky, “Selected overview

of Risk Asseement Techniques,” in

Operational Problems, Brno, Czech

Republic: University of Defence, 2009.

[17] T. Aven, “Risk assessment and risk

management: Review of recent advances on

their foundation,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol.

253, no. 1, pp. 1–13, Aug. 2016, doi:

10.1016/J.EJOR.2015.12.023.

[18] European Standard, “European and

International standards,” 2023.

https://www.en-standard.eu/ (accessed Dec.

29, 2023).

[19] C. Ermidis and G. Fekas, “Safety and Health

in the Workplace and Risk Analysis in large

Industrial Units (AHS Melitis),” University

of West Macedonia (in Greek), 2018.

[20] S. Guo, J. Li, K. Liang, and B. Tang,

“Improved safety checklist analysis approach

using intelligent video surveillance in the

construction industry: a case study,” Int. J.

Occup. Saf. Ergon., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1064–

1075, 2021, doi:

10.1080/10803548.2019.1685781.

[21] S. F. Arnold, M. Stenzel, D. Drolet, and G.

Ramachandran, “Using checklists and

algorithms to improve qualitative exposure

judgment accuracy,” J. Occup. Environ.

Hyg., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 159–168, Mar. 2016,

doi: 10.1080/15459624.2015.1053892.

[22] M. Weigl, A. Müller, A. Paramythelli, P.

Angerer, and R. Petru, “Checklist for

psychosocial risk evaluation: a prospective

evaluation study,” Occup. Med. (Chic. Ill).,

vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 7–12, Jan. 2017, doi:

10.1093/OCCMED/KQW151.

[23] E. Tolley, P. Ulin, N. Mack, E. Robinson,

and S. Succop, Qualitative methods in Public

Health, 2nd ed. San Francisco, USA: Wiley,

2016.

[24] M. Fargnoli et al., “The Safe Use of

Pesticides: A Risk Assessment Procedure for

the Enhancement of Occupational Health and

Safety (OHS) Management,” Int. J. Environ.

Res. Public Heal., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 310,

2019, doi:

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030310.

[25] S. Alder, “The HIPAA Journal - OSHA

Compliance Checklist,” 2023.

https://www.hipaajournal.com/osha-

compliance-checklist/ (accessed Jan. 16,

2024).

[26] OSHA, “Recommended Practices for Safety

and Health Programs in Construction,” 2016.

Accessed: Jan. 16, 2024. [Online]. Available:

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publ

ications/OSHA3886.pdf.

[27] H.-I. Moon, S.-W. Han, S. Shin, and S.-H.

Byeon, “Comparison of the Qualitative and

the Quantitative Risk Assessment of

Hazardous Substances Requiring

Management under the Occupational Safety

and Health Act in South Korea,” Environ.

Res. Public Heal., vol. 18, no. 3, 2021,

[Online]. Available:

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-

4601/18/3/1354.

Contribution of Individual Authors to the

Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting

Policy)

Dr Ploutarchos Kerpelis was responsible for the

conceptualization, methodology, writing and

supervision.

Andriani-Christina Argyriou implemented the

conceptualisation, made the formal analysis visits to

the Power Station, and was responsible for the data

curation.

Dr Dimitrios E. Alexakis, Dr Vasileios Kotinas have

written/edit, organized the resources and had the

supervision.

International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Development

DOI: 10.37394/232033.2024.2.6

Kerpelis P., Argyriou A-C.,

Alexakis D.E., Kotinas V.

E-ISSN: 2945-1159

Volume 2, 2024

Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a

Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare

that are relevant to the content of this article.

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)

This article is published under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

_US

Appendix 1: Ranking of the station risks and measures needed

a/a

Ranking of risk

(1-5)

Description of effects

a. Station shutdown

b. Port shutdown

c. Injury

d. Death

e. Environmental

impacts

Risk reduction measures

(Table 3-4)

√

1.1., 1.2. 1.5, 1.7., 2.2.

√

1.2., 1.3., 1.5., 1.7.

2.2., 2.6.

√

1.2., 1.3., 1.5., 1.7.

2.2., 2.6.

√

1.1. - 1.7.

2.1. - 2.11.

√

1.4. - 1.7.

2.1., 2.2.

√

1.1. - 1.7.

2.1. - 2.11

√

1.5. -1.7.

2.1. - 2.3.

√

1.3., 1.4. - 1.7.

2.1., 2.3., 2.5., 2.6., 2.8.

√

1.1. - 1.7.

2.1. - 2.11.

10.

√

1.1. - 1.7.

2.1. - 2.11.

11.

√

1.1. - 1.7.

2.1. - 2.11.

12.

√

1.3., 1.5. - 1.7.

2.1 - 2.3., 2.5., 2.6., 2.9., 2.10.

International Journal of Environmental Engineering and Development

DOI: 10.37394/232033.2024.2.6

Kerpelis P., Argyriou A-C.,

Alexakis D.E., Kotinas V.

E-ISSN: 2945-1159

Volume 2, 2024